Unreliable and Invalid? Not So Fast: A Multistudy Empirical Assessment of the ‘Directional’ Measure of Negative Campaigning

The ‘directional’ definition of negative campaigning (i.e. when candidates leverage critiques against their political opponents) has been criticized for lacking reliability and validity. Does this critical assessment resist scrutiny? We propose, via nine different original studies, a full-scale reassessment of this critical assessment. Building on novel evidence from sources as disparate as expert ratings of elections across the world, automated and manual coding of social media posts, candidate self-ratings, cross-sectional surveys, experimental evidence, and more, we provide a much less pessimistic outlook. The evidence discussed in the nine studies showcases high levels of (self-)observer agreement (i.e. different people evaluate the same phenomenon similarly), situational consistency (evaluations are stable across time and space), convergent validity (different independent measures of the same phenomenon are strongly correlated), construct validity (measures can be used to provide empirical support for theoretically cogent hypotheses), and discriminant validity (proximate phenomena are perceived differently). The directional measure of campaign negativity is not perfect, but it is very much alive and kicking. The data and materials for all nine studies are open for replication and re-analysis.